Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5819055" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's true, and a good point. My RPG rewards story advancement (what happened this session?), as well as danger (how much danger were you in?), on a scale of 1 to 10. This helps keep things proactive, it helps keep risks being taken over and over, and so on.So, my game would give just as much XP for dooming a town as saving it, even if it's from failure. That might sound weird to many people, I suppose. At any rate, XP rewards (and like issues) should be looked at.See, this isn't what I've been talking about, but maybe that hasn't been clear. I've been talking about players who choose to make their character largely incompetent in one area (combat, exploration, or social interaction). They can make the classes support all three, for example, but if a player decides to change it, they should be able to.They've mentioned having &quot;base&quot; builds, with options to swap out features for other abilities (such as powers). They could apply that to what I'm talking about with no issue whatsoever. However, I mentioned &quot;baking competency into the class&quot; and &quot;forced competency&quot; in those areas. I'm specifically referring to something that cannot be swapped out, like the proposal of some (&quot;you get one combat, exploration, and social interaction ability at each level&quot;). That's fine to many people, I'm sure, but if it's forced, then it's a problem for me, as I've outlined in this thread.At the base level of a given class, I agree. I just think there should be ways to swap out that base level of competency. Of course, Fighters will still have a level of competency in combat that couldn't be swapped out, just as Bards might with social interaction. Archetype and all that. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5819055, member: 6668292"] That's true, and a good point. My RPG rewards story advancement (what happened this session?), as well as danger (how much danger were you in?), on a scale of 1 to 10. This helps keep things proactive, it helps keep risks being taken over and over, and so on. So, my game would give just as much XP for dooming a town as saving it, even if it's from failure. That might sound weird to many people, I suppose. At any rate, XP rewards (and like issues) should be looked at. See, this isn't what I've been talking about, but maybe that hasn't been clear. I've been talking about players who [I]choose[/I] to make their character largely incompetent in one area (combat, exploration, or social interaction). They can make the classes support all three, for example, but if a player [I]decides[/I] to change it, they should be able to. They've mentioned having "base" builds, with options to swap out features for other abilities (such as powers). They could apply that to what I'm talking about with no issue whatsoever. However, I mentioned "baking competency into the class" and "forced competency" in those areas. I'm specifically referring to something that [I]cannot[/I] be swapped out, like the proposal of some ("you get one combat, exploration, and social interaction ability at each level"). That's fine to many people, I'm sure, but if it's forced, then it's a problem for me, as I've outlined in this thread. At the base level of a given class, I agree. I just think there should be ways to swap out that base level of competency. Of course, Fighters will still have a level of competency in combat that couldn't be swapped out, just as Bards might with social interaction. Archetype and all that. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification